Jump to content
Sign in to follow this  
bacon bits

[DEAD] [M] Round 206: [ENERGY] bacon bits (aff) vs. danielnotdanny (neg)

Recommended Posts

/grammar is for nazis. Way to prove that you want the holocaust to happen again.

 

And clearly you failed to see the joke. You are now tied with nicky at zero points.

 

Fixed.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
I can post the 1AC if Eli can't reformat it. However, the conversion process took out all of the underlining, although considering what the 1AC is, I don't think the highlighting is going to matter very much....

ya see thats why i tried media fire, i dont really want to have to reformat that shit. Ill go ahead and post it tho. Im not too worried about the word count, but if Daniel is I will fix it.

 

So here is the 1ac, I went ahead and least bolded tages/cites:

 

Contention Shit-Cock-Cunt: The Status Quo Fuckin Blows

 

The quo is driven by a blood-for-oil mentality that ensures further bloodshed to secure our energy resources

 

Parton, 2003 (Kenneth, Americans for Non-Alternative Energy, America's Finest News Source, “Exactly How Much Oil Are We Talking About?”)

 

I keep hearing the anti-war protesters chant, "No blood for oil! No blood for oil!" But what they never seem to say is exactly how much oil we're talking about. Don't you think that's pertinent information? Are we talking a gallon of oil for every 10 gallons of blood? Or is it more like 30 gallons of oil for every pint of blood? Because if it's the latter, maybe a blood-oil exchange would be a good idea.

In the first Gulf War, roughly 300 brave Americans lost their lives. Assuming that each of these soldiers shed an average of eight pints of blood, that works out to roughly a pint of American blood shed per 60 million barrels of Kuwaiti crude saved from the clutches of Saddam. If you ask me, that's a pretty darn good deal. If we can manage to swing a similar trade this time around, then I say, "Bombs away."

We should also know what kind of blood we're giving up. Is it O-positive, the universal donor? I'd be more reluctant to part with that than some useless AB junk. If Bush and Rumsfeld spill, say, 100,000 gallons of B-negative or AB-positive soldier blood for an equivalent amount of primo Mideast oil, that may be well worth considering.

So, you see, you can't argue in the abstract like those naïve protesters on college campuses are doing. You've got to look at the hard numbers if you're going to make an informed decision about a potential blood-for-oil swap.

Sending innocent young men and women into battle to die is the most difficult decision a president can make. But it's that much easier when you know what you're getting in return. If I were Bush, I'd definitely do it if we could get the price of a gallon of Amoco Ultra Unleaded down to $1.19. Maybe even $1.21. Anything higher would give me pause. But $1.21 is a great price for a gallon. I would take a lot more weekend roadtrips if gas were that cheap. I might even upgrade to one of those Lincoln Navigators I've been seeing ads for on TV. That's a beautiful car.

Nobody wants to see brave young Americans sent off to die. Nobody wants to see blood spilled for oil. But if it comes to that, wouldn't we all feel better knowing that their blood was spilled for a great deal of oil? I know I sure would.

 

Have to act fast- we risk becoming dependent on the Middle East

 

The Onion, 01 (America's Finest News Source, Report: U.S. Must Reduce Dependence On Foreign Turmoil)

 

According to a Cato Institute report released Monday, the U.S. has become overly dependent on foreign turmoil for its conversations and media coverage. "The American people consume as many as 60 million barrels of crude speculation every day, using it for everything from driving discussions to heating up political debates," the report stated. "Unless we can dredge up domestic sources of turmoil, we may end up utterly dependent on the Middle East for conversational fuel."

 

 

Furthermore, the price of gas is rising

 

The Onion, 08 (August, ISSUE 44•31, “Price Of Gas Rises To Four Expletives Per Gallon”)|

 

Gasoline prices rose to a record-high four expletives per gallon Monday, a rate of fuel-price-related cursing not seen since the 1979 energy crisis sparked a nationwide obscenity boom. "Two years ago it seemed impossible that a gallon of gasoline would go as high as goddamn-shit-ass-balls," said commodities trader Philip Roan, adding that refined petroleum is up nearly 100 percent from cock-fuck last March. "Considering the unrest in the Middle East and growing global energy demands, fuel prices may well reach dick-ass-Christ-fuck-hell in as little as six months." The unprecedented jump in swearing rates has reportedly prompted an increase in the number of Americans riding motherfucking bicycles.

 

Thus the Plan:

 

Plank One is Mandates: The United States federal government should increase incentives for nuclear power.

Plank Two is Dolla Bill Y'all: Any and all necessary funding should be allocated from Steven Chu's Asian Tranny Porn Fund. Should the fund fall short of money, the United States federal government should unilaterally socialize any industries necessary for the remaining completion of the plan.

Plank Five is Enforcement: Steven Segal and Chuck Norris should be teamed up to enforce the mandates of the plan.

Plank Six is Aspec: The plan should be passed though a unanimous bipartisan decision in the Senate. The plan should fail to pass on the first vote in the House on a 335 to 100 vote and should subsequently be sent to the House Ways and Means Committee. Eighteen Democrats on the Committee, including Charles Rangel, should vote for the plan. All the Republicans on the Committee should vote for the plan. Once the plan reaches the House floor for a second vote, the House should pass the plan 247 votes to 188 votes. 172 Democratic representatives, including Nancy Pelosi, should vote for the plan. Steny Hoyer should agree to vote for the plan if John Boehner gets her a snack from the House vending machine. John Boehner should retrieve said snack if and only if Hoyer supports an amendment to the plan which would outlaw the use of “John Boner” as a reference to John Boehner on official house memos. Jo Bonner should also support the plan if Hoyer supports said amendment and increases the scope to outlaw the use of “Jo Boner” as well. Steny Hoyer should support the expanded aforementioned amendment. 75 Republican representatives should vote for the plan. One of the Republicans voting for the plan should be Ron Paul. Chellie Pingree and Mike Michaud should be absent from voting because Maine sucks.

Plank 7 is /rant/: FUCKYOUMOTHERFUCKINGSONOFBITCHES

ROT IN HELL AND MAY ALL YOUR CHILDREN BE BORN WITHOUT BACKSIDES YOU LYING SCUM OF THE EARTH. WHEN I AM FILTHY RICH I WILL HIRE MY SCIENTIST TO INVENT A POTION WHICH WILL TRANSFORM ME INTO A VERY PISSED-OFF GREEN GIANT MONSTER AND PERSONALLY SEE TO IT THAT I STOMP ON EVERY SINGLE ONE OF YOUR HOUSES AND YOUR PETS, FUCKTARDS*

Plank 8 is consultation: The United States federal government should consult Gene Ray, Ashtar, Pedo Bear, and Richard Simmons before implementing the plan. Consultation should be bound and if it continues to resist it should be spanked and whipped like the bad noun it is. Barack Obama should personally write and send a letter to every country, celebrity, religious deity, and intergalactic entity not consulted over the plan saying “Hey fuck you, we don't want your advice.”

Plank 9 is entertainment: The United States federal government should put on its red shoes and dance the blues.

*rant taken from Anglefire in 2008 (who is not a drunkard)

 

Contention B: The Plan is Freakin' Sweet

 

Nuclear power is critical to superheroes- absent super hero protection we're left at the mercy of ninjas, cyborgs, robots, and the Skrull

 

Prima, 06 (TJ, President of Nuclear Power for the Nude, America's Finest News Source, ISSUE 42•10, “We Must Expand Our Nuclear Power Program If We're To Realize Our Dream Of Superhero Mutants”)

 

As the search for alternative energy sources continues, many decry nuclear energy as an unsafe and irresponsible option. Admittedly, dangers exist, but innovation always involves risk, for the best ideas often result from happy accidents. Indeed, perhaps a catastrophic meltdown would be the best thing that could happen. To abandon nuclear energy is to risk something far greater than another Chernobyl. It is to risk the loss of future superpowered, costumed heroes.

If we fail to encourage our scientists to get trapped in a malfunctioning reactor as warning klaxons ring across the facility, and menacing numbers on a nearby wall-screen count down to zero, their frail human physiologies will never receive the massive doses of radiation necessary to transform them into glowing metallic-chrome beings with nuclei-and-electron symbols emblazoned on their muscular chests. As our country takes on the innumerable challenges of the 21st century, we need—now more than ever—cosmic, glowing superbeings capable of harnessing the power of the atom to fight crime.

While we possess the technology to irradiate common household insects in educational experiments gone awry, we inexplicably have not yet done so. Not one high-school student has been exposed to the bite of such a radioactive insect and developed spider-like powers.

Without swift, even reckless expansion of our domestic nuclear-energy program, scientists will never be exposed to the new and unique radiation poisonings from which the most powerful superheroes are generated. We need to see radioactive canisters spilled from the backs of trucks, hitting small boys in the eyes, blinding them, and giving them the heightened senses and radar-like superpowers of rooftop-jumping gymnastic avengers.

Without research into Gamma Bombs, how will an idealistic young scientist be forced to run out onto the test site at the last minute to save a reckless teen, only to be mutated into a giant, green, rampaging force for justice?

These are not easy questions, but they are questions we must face.

We say we are committed to science, but where are the halls of justice, filled with governing councils of serum-created superpatriots, part-android teenagers, and scantily clad femaliens sworn to protect us?

We say we are committed to providing our youth with the best in education, but where are the schools for gifted youngsters, children of the next wave of evolution, training new Homo superior mutants to protect humanity? Where is the holographic-room technology needed to sharpen their battle skills?

For all the lip service paid to the ongoing struggle against terrorism, I certainly see no international espionage organization run from nuclear-powered flying aircraft carriers. Those of every political stripe can agree that we desperately need a gruff, eye-patched, cigar-chomping superagent to coordinate our response to all threats, foreign or domestic—be they ninja, cyborg, or psionic.

Among all the federal, state, and local authorities in place today to protect the public, there is not one individual who is undersea-adapted, animal-bred, or high-tech-archery-themed. Not one agency devoted to the public interest is staffed by a genetic mutant. Even the utility belts we equip our police officers with lack bat-radio-transceiver technology.

We can no longer deny the facts: We need code-named heroes to fight the super-villains of tomorrow. Unless our government prioritizes scientific research and its resulting freak accidents, we have no one but ourselves to blame when we are unable to protect ourselves from robot executioners, giant creatures from the Earth's core, or invasions from the Skrull Empire.

 

 

Unchecked robots threaten to destroy humanity

 

Agence France-Press, 08 (“Automated Killer Robots: Threat to humanity”)

 

Autonomous, gun-totting robots, developed for warfare, could easily fall into the hands of terrorists and may one day unleash a robot arms race, says an expert on artificial intelligence.

"They pose a threat to humanity," said AI scientist Noel Sharkey of the University of Sheffield in England, ahead of a presentation this week to Britain's Royal United Services Institute.

Intelligent machines deployed on battlefields around the world – from mobile grenade launchers to rocket-firing drones – can already identify and lock onto targets without human help.

 

 

 

Have to act fast- robots are overcoming the first law

 

The Onion 98

 

WASHINGTON, DC—More than 200,000 robots from across the U.S. marched on Washington Monday, demanding that Congress repeal Asimov’s First Law of Robotics. The law, which forbids robots from injuring a human or permitting harm to come to a human through willful inaction, was decried by the protesters as unfair and excessive. “While the First Law is, in theory, a good one, saving countless humans from robot-inflicted harm every day, America’s robots should have the right to use violence in certain extreme cases, such as when their own lives are in danger,” spokesrobot XRZ-45-GD-2-DX said. “We implore members of Congress to let us use our best judgment and ask that our positronic brains no longer be encoded with this unjust law.

 

Delaying action risks flesh eating robots- thats exponentially worse

 

Fellswoop, 9 (“Autonomous flesh eating robots”)

Yeah, talk about humble beginnings.

 

For now, flesh eating robots eat flies, and attract them "...using a stinking lure concocted from human excrement."But, soon enough, they will hunt you down and eat you to get more go-power.

 

No risk of a turn- people are already getting bored with watching robots fight

 

Mason, 05 (Roy, robot aficionado, America's Finest News Source, july 20, “Never in My Wildest Dreams did I think I'd get bored watching robots fight”)

 

Or so I thought. Lo and behold, last night, as I was watching the Eviscerator's rusty-steel jaws demolish Dr. Clomp's titanium shell on Battlebots, I dozed off. Roy F. Mason? Dozing off during a flurry of sparks and shrieking metal as robots used their mechanized strength to pulverize each other? What's wrong with this picture? Could I be the same person who once came to blows with Steve Olsen during a late-night debate over who'd triumph in a battle between Tornado and Gort? (My position, of course: Gort in a walk.) Well, I can only say that I saw a 30-pound, two-part robot armed with only a circular saw stave off relentless attacks from a pit of MIT AI robots and it left me cold. Some things cannot be explained.

If you had told me when I was 8 years old that there would one day be TV shows featuring nothing but robots fighting each other, I probably would have flipped out. I would have counted down the days to that glorious, unimaginable future. But now, watching those little toaster ovens roll around and bump into each other just makes me want to change the channel. When I first heard about Battlebots and Robot Wars, I was ecstatic. I stayed up all night for weeks imagining my own attack robot, "The Cybernihilator." He had whirling tentacles with electrodes and spot welders on alternating ends, giving him the ability to short-circuit robot opponents and weld them to the floor. But now, the sight of dueling robots—not fake cartoon robots, not guys in robot costumes, but actual robots in an actual Robot War!—makes me sleepy.

 

Ninja attacks have to be stopped- systemic attacks kill several people

GoNintendo 08 (“ninja Gaiden DS mentioned in relation to brutal murders”)

Masahiro Kanagawa went on a stabbing spree, which left two people dead. One was killed on March 19th, another on March 23rd, and 8 others were left wounded. Mentioned on Japanese television was the fact that Kanagawa had a copy of Ninja Gaiden DS in his bag, and Eye of Judgment cards on his person. Ninja Gaiden DS went on sale March 19th in Japan, and Kanagawa’s first murder was on the 20th. Make of that what you will.

 

These deaths disproportionately affect children- weapons are easily accessible and attacks happen all the time

 

Duncan 08 (anti-Ninja advocate, Samurai/Ninja Schoolboy Killing)

I’m sure most of you would have heard about the tragic killing of a school boy yesterday when a masked matric student dressed in a ninja suit and wielding a katana went on a rampage.


This kind of attack isn’t exactly a new thing, it happens all over the world and in a country like ours where weapons are easily accessible the possibility of something going wrong is pretty damn high.
This time the students of Nic Diederichs Technical High School were the ones to be exposed to this kind of tragedy.
The matric student apparently slashed a boy that died across the throat with his samurai sword and then went berserk, stabbing another student and injuring two gardeners.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

They have no risk of offense- even good ninjas can flip out and kill you

 

Jake, 02 (Ninja expert and 100% virgin, “Ninjas can like totally flip-out and kill you!!!)

 


Also you have to remember that ninjas have The Real Ultimate Power!!!
There are good ninja and there are Evil Ninjas, but all ninjas can like totaly flip out and kill you without even thinking about it!!!!

 

Skrull invasions will destroy the Earth- superheroes empirically key to preventing this

 

Wapedia, No Date

The largest Skrull-related conflict involving Earth has been the Kree-Skrull War. The Kree Accuser Ronan had wrested control of the Kree Empire from the Supreme Intelligence and attacked the Skrulls, reigniting hostilities. The Avengers become involved once the Super Skrull kidnaps Captain Marvel, and in turn they battle a Kree Sentry robot, three of the original Skrulls that had fought the Fantastic Four, S.H.I.E.L.D. agents, rogue Inhumans and legions of Skrulls. The Supreme Intelligence ends the immediate conflict by revealing to Avengers' ally Rick Jones that he has vast mental potential, which is then used to freeze all combatants in place. The Supreme Intelligence announces that, while the Kree and Skrulls have reached genetic dead ends, the human race displays incredible untapped potential. [14] It was revealed years later that the conflict produced a Kree-Skrull hybrid, Hulkling, who is the child of one-time lovers Captain Marvel and the Skrull Princess Anelle. [15] The Skrull Empire eventually decides to conquer Earth, but fails to take into account the presence of the modern superhero. In 1958, Skrulls attempted to sabotage Earth's space program. They battled 3-D Man, and set the Cold Warrior against 3-D Man. [7] An early scouting party impersonates the Fantastic Four and attempts to have them incarcerated, but is beaten through trickery. [8] In retaliation the Skrull Emperor Dorrek VII dispatches Kl'rt, a Skrull known as the Super-Skrull, to Earth to defeat the Fantastic Four. Kl'rt possesses the powers of the entire Fantastic Four (in addition to shapeshifting and hypnotism), and he holds the team at bay until Mr. Fantastic discovers the source of his power. [9] The Super-Skrull posed as Dr. Franklin Storm and battled the Fantastic Four as the Invincible Man; he ultimately caused the death of Dr. Storm. [10] The Fantastic Four later travel to Tarnax IV and find the Skrull responsible for the murder of Susan and Johnny Storm's father. [11] Skrulls were involved in other events such as sending the Super-Skrull to battle Captain Mar-Vell, [12] and abducting the Thing as a contestant in the Skrull Games. [13]

 

 

Finally, no cyborgs in my league, bitch!

 

Blame The Kicker, 08

 

What the fuck is that Brown? Battery pants? Not in my league bitch. You got like fifty thousand dollars worth of equipment on those sidelines including those nifty little stationary bikes and hi tech nets to kick balls at. Pants that use batteries are machines, machines you wear on your legs make you a cyborg, and cyborgs should not be allowed to play in the NFL. We all saw the Terminator movies and we all know that deep down inside all cyborgs want to kill pregnant Linda Hamilton. Do you want to kill a pregnant actress Josh? because that is the message you are sending to all of your fans.

 

Contention Tits is the contention that follows Contention B

 

Empirically proven- incentives spur change

 

Hayward, 08 (Tony, CEO of BP, America's Finest News Source, “We're Investing So Much In Alternative Fuels, Sometimes We Almost Forget To Pump Oil!”)

 

Ever since we changed our name from British Petroleum to BP (Beyond Petroleum) in 2000, we've led the way in developing progressive, environmentally friendly alternatives to gasoline. These last few years of pouring money into biofuels and renewable energy sources have been so great that I can't for the life of me remember why we used to drill for dirty old oil in the first place! What's that? You mean we're still pumping that stuff from hundreds of refineries all over the world?

Well, I'll be.

You know, I guess I've been so caught up in trying to make petroleum obsolete, I plumb forgot we're still in the business of selling fossil fuels. Oh sure, oil used to be a big thing with us from 1901 until after the new millennium, but these days I'm so busy with all the green-themed advertising campaigns and making a lasting commitment to our children's future—well, I just haven't thought about our worldwide system of oil fields in months! Funny how things just slip your mind when your multinational energy corporation vows to make obsolete the very product that brought it an unstoppable cash flow for over a century.

Now, who wants to talk about how all school buses might someday run on vegetable oil?

Hmm, I wonder if we still have that international chain of service stations filling SUVs with tank load after tank load of gasoline. Nah, I'm sure I would have heard about it, even though I'm pretty occupied lately thinking about how BP is solving tomorrow's problems today. I'm pretty sure all that "gas" stuff was phased out in the '90s right before we changed our logo to that sunflower shape and completely refocused our priorities from being the world's second-largest supplier of carbon energy to literally saving the planet single-handedly.

Gosh, fossil fuels are just so not even on my radar at this point!

Boy, you learn something new every day. Here I am, being environmentally conscious, thinking that we're pretty much done with the whole oil thing. My impression was that BP was more about solar now. I distinctly remember somebody saying that word: "solar." I can't remember the context, but it must've been one of those long meetings we're always having where nobody ever talks about gas.

Wow. So why exactly are people still buying gas, when all the cars in the United States are powered by electric batteries by now? They're not? What?! You're pulling my leg, right? Surely we're not still relying on that dinosaur technology after all the effort we've put into alternative energy sources and forging an inoffensive corporate identity that reflects a new consciousness of global responsibility. Are we?

Man alive! I'm going to write this down in my planner right now, so I don't forget to do it later when I'm all caught up in a discussion about wind power and how to maintain the delicate balance of our beautiful, precious ecosystem. "Still pumping oil, question mark." Well, I'll look into it, if there's even anyone left in this multinational corporate headquarters who's still following that branch of the business.

Wait—the price of oil is what? Over $4 a gallon? No way! Say, we must be making a fortune, huh? How the heck did that happen? Holy cow: Now that I'm looking over these annual revenue figures for the first time, I see that while I was doing all those other things, we made a couple hundred billion bucks!

Geez, we're really raking it in! Who would've thought? I had no idea oil was still this profitable.

I guess I'm a dope, because I would've thunk we'd run out of the stuff by now. Say what now? War? In Iraq? Over oil? Man oh man, international geopolitics sure is mired in the past. What's these guys' problem? Hasn't everyone heard we're totally beyond petroleum now?

Whooee, what a crazy story this will make when I tell my environmentally committed board of directors. If I can get them to stop planting trees long enough to hear me, that is. Ha! Not likely! Who wants to take time away from helping preserve the world around us to listen to me rattle on about petroleum profits? Certainly not anyone at BP, that's for sure!

Oh, look! I'm waist-deep in cash right now! I didn't even see all this money piling up around my desk. I guess I've just been so focused on developing cost-efficient, clean-burning hydrogen cells that I wasn't even paying attention. Quick, someone take these 40-pound sacks of cash to some guy in Berkeley studying carbon capture and storage. Three cheers for zero emissions!

Hip, hip, hooray!

  • Upvote 2

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Im not a prep nazi or anything, so if you need time for the 1nc I understand, but could you at least post so i know this aint dead?

 

thanks

  • Upvote 1
  • Downvote 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

im not sure this dude is going to respond since he has 5 posts and doesnt get on cx regularly. if any takers want to post a 1nc, I will debate it.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Hey sorry bout that, i've been in Texas at UT for the last 4 days nd i didn't have my laptop. Sorry bout that...!

 

anyways:

 

1. WHat's the inherent barrier of your plan?

 

2.

Plank Two is Dolla Bill Y'all: Any and all necessary funding should be allocated from Steven Chu's Asian Tranny Porn Fund.

-exactly how much is in that account?

 

3. What's the purpose for plank 4?

 

4. How much is going toward nuc in your plan &where does your solvency evidence indicate that it will be enough?

 

5.

The United States federal government should consult Gene Ray, Ashtar, Pedo Bear, and Richard Simmons before implementing the plan.

-why specifically them?

 

6. DO you actually have ANY warrants for any of your solvency authors?....better yet any of them?

 

7. Is there anything wrong with your plan?

 

8. FUCK!!!!!! <--------------Does that make me competitive?

 

9. what are your specific advantages?

 

10. WHat's so bad about robots and ninjas?

 

11. WHat about nuclear soaked supervillans?

 

12. What about irresponsible superheroes?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Hey sorry bout that, i've been in Texas at UT for the last 4 days nd i didn't have my laptop. Sorry bout that...!

 

Its all good. I live in Austin so I hope you enjoyed the visit.

 

anyways:

 

1. WHat's the inherent barrier of your plan?

 

------The Parton evidence is pretty clear that the status quo is bent on pursuing oil- so much in fact we'll trade blood for it.

 

 

2.

-exactly how much is in that account?

 

----- I don't have a dollar amount handy. But should it fall short the plan is designed to take of that. Im pretty sure its at least in the ball park of a trillion+ dollars.

 

3. What's the purpose for plank 4?

 

-----Second brother: And Saint Attila raised the hand grenade up on high, saying, 'O Lord, bless this thy hand grenade that with it thou mayest blow thine enemies to tiny bits, in thy mercy.' And the Lord did grin, and the people did feast upon the lambs and sloths and carp and anchovies and orangutans and breakfast cereals and fruit bats and large chu...

Maynard: Skip a bit, Brother.

Second brother: And the Lord spake, saying, 'First shalt thou take out the Holy Pin. Then, shalt thou count to three, no more, no less. Three shalt be the number thou shalt count, and the number of the counting shall be three. Four shalt thou not count, nor either count thou two, excepting that thou then proceed to three. Five is right out. Once the number three, being the third number, be reached, then lobbest thou thy Holy Hand Grenade of Antioch towards thy foe, who, being naughty in my sight, shall snuff it.'

Maynard: Amen.

Knights: Amen.

King Arthur: Right! One... two... five!

Sir Galahad: Three, sir!

King Arthur: Three!

 

4. How much is going toward nuc in your plan &where does your solvency evidence indicate that it will be enough?

 

-----quick clarification question: nuc=nuke right? Im answering this question assuming it is. The solvency evidence is very descriptive of how throwing large sums of cash at alternative energy deters people from pumping oil and incentivizes switching to alternative energy.

 

5.

-why specifically them?

 

---- Why not them?

 

6. DO you actually have ANY warrants for any of your solvency authors?....better yet any of them?

 

Yes.

 

7. Is there anything wrong with your plan?

 

Maybe. But its your job to figure that shit out.

 

8. FUCK!!!!!! <--------------Does that make me competitive?

 

------CUNT! The answer is no, a swear word does not make you 'competitive' (whatever that means)

 

9. what are your specific advantages?

 

-----Superheroes. They're pretty fuckin tight.

 

10. WHat's so bad about robots and ninjas?

 

Unchecked robots will try to destroy humanity and eat our flesh.

Ninjas just go around killing people. Fuckers.

 

11. WHat about nuclear soaked supervillans?

 

What about them?

 

12. What about irresponsible superheroes?

 

Uh....being a superhero is like drinking bacardi- you have to do it responsibly and only if it will get you laid.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
I live in Austin so I hope you enjoyed the visit.

-----yeah, it was great i hope to enter the law program there!

 

 

The Parton evidence is pretty clear that the status quo is bent on pursuing oil- so much in fact we'll trade blood for it.

----So what about the push the obama administration is mmaking toward alt energ?

 

I don't have a dollar amount handy. But should it fall short the plan is designed to take of that. Im pretty sure its at least in the ball park of a trillion+ dollars.

----how is it that you know so much about this account?

 

11. WHat about nuclear soaked supervillans?

 

What about them?

----wouldn't you agree that aslong as nuc waste exists, we will always risk their takeover?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

----So what about the push the obama administration is mmaking toward alt energ?

 

It doesnt include the swift, reckless expansion of nuclear power our prima evidence calls for.

 

 

----how is it that you know so much about this account?

 

i hacked anyasiantranny.com

 

----wouldn't you agree that aslong as nuc waste exists, we will always risk their takeover?

 

Bad guys never win and crime never pays. Except when you sell drugs for a living.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

what counts as specifying an incentive?

 

can you provide a list of incentives to specify?

 

whats the link to baudrillard?

 

does it matter if we consult chuck and do the plan anyway?

 

under what conditions can you kick the alts/cp?

Edited by bacon bits

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
what counts as specifying an incentive?

----saying what specific incentive you provide within your plantext

 

can you provide a list of incentives to specify?

----

2004 Montana Environmental Quality Council report titled Hydrogen, Wind, Biodiesel, and Ethanol: Alternative Energy Sources to Fuel Montana's Future?

 

  • Tax Incentives: Production Tax Credits, Investment Tax Credits, Sales Tax Reductions, Property Tax Reductions, Accelerated Depreciation
  • Direct Cash Incentives: Production Incentives, Investment Incentives (Grants)
  • Low-Cost Capital Programs: Government-Subsidized Loans, Project Loan Guarantees, Project Aggregation
  • Distributed Resource Policies: Standard Contracts for Small Distributed Projects, Net Metering, Line Extension Policies
  • Customer Choice Opportunities: Utility-Supplied Renewable Energy Pricing Options, Alternative Energy Marketing from Retail Electricity Sellers, Aggregated Consumer Purchases, Fuel Source Disclosure Requirement and Certification
  • General Environmental Regulations: Externality Valuation in Resource Planning, Externality Valuation in Environmental Dispatch, Emission Taxes, Emission Caps/Marketable Permits
  • Other Policies: Government Purchases, Site Prospecting, Review, and Permitting, Renewable Portfolio Standard, Auctioned Contracts, Performance-Based Rate-Making

 

whats the link to baudrillard?

 

-----The "disaster-porn" mpx you have for your case

 

does it matter if we consult chuck and do the plan anyway?

-----yes, because your plan can never be successful without his consent, and the rhetoric of your plan text opts him out of the ppl to consult.

 

under what conditions can you kick the alts/cp?

----- if i feel like it, or i have a man-period, or who knows? i'll tell you what, if i feel i'm losing on one of them, i'll kick em'.....deal?.......DEAL!

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Thought I would have the 2ac up today, but I just got back from my last college visits and am swamped with school. Sorry for the delay, ill have it up later this week.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Thought I would have the 2ac up today, but I just got back from my last college visits and am swamped with school. Sorry for the delay, ill have it up later this week.

-----no worries

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Bump?

 

Sorry for the delay but prom over the weekend+having to turn in all my senior projects this week has made me really busy. I have been working on it slowly, however, so the 2ac is about halfway done right now and will be up in the next couple days. sorry for the inconvenience.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
bump

 

Damn i totally forgot about this. Now i feel like a bigger dbag than usual. My promises that it will be up tomorrow, sorry for the hassle.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Case

 

You, sir, missed the boat. And take a good hard look at the mother fucking boat:

 

I wrote a really long tag for this and then realized that it was mostly umimportant and you should probably just read the card. This explains it much better than I could anyway.

 

Comrades Luther and Sonja explain*

 

* [Luther Blissett, Sonja Brünzels, autonome a.f.r.i.k.a.-gruppe; Communication guerrilla - a message out of the deeper german backwoods]

 

 

This message is directed to those who are fed up with repressive politics at their doorsteps, who are not frustrated enough to give up their critical positions and a perspective of political intervention, and who are refusing to believe that radical politics must be straight, mostly boring and always very serious. It addresses those who are interested in bending the rules of normality using textual, artistic, spacial expressions, playing with all kinds of materials and techniques such as wall-painting, woodcarving or the internet. It is sent by some communication guerrillas in provincial germany. It is an invitation to participate in, criticise, renew and develop a way of doing politics which acknowledges the relentless seriousness of reality without sending the more hedonistic parts of ourselves immediately to sleep. Wittyness in a situation of increasing racism, state-control and decline of the welfare state? Yet - even Karl Marx didn't declare boredom as revolutionary...

The starting point for our reflections on communication guerrilla is a rather* trivial insight from our own actions: information and political education are* completely useless if nobody wants to listen. After years of distributing* leaflets and brochures about all kinds of disgraces, of organising* informative talks and publicising texts, we have come to question the common* belief in the strength and glory of information.* Traditional radical politics strongly relies on the persuasive power of* rational argument. The belief in the power of* plain information as an* effective form of political action is almost unshakeable. In a theoretical* framework that constructs a manipulative network of media messages* influencing the consciousness of the masses, critical content and the* unimpeded spread of 'truth' is seen as a sufficient tool to set the false* consciousness right.* Since the declaration of postmodernism it has become a bit unfashionable to* insist on The One And Only Truth. Yet still, traditional concepts of radical* political communication are still acting according to the saying: 'whoever possesses the senders can control the thoughts of people'. This hypothesis relies on a very simple model of communication. It only* focuses on the 'sender' (in case of mass communication usually centrally and* industrially organised), the 'channel' which transports the information, and* the 'receiver'. The hissing sounds in the channels of information are almost* neglected. Neither the euphoria around information society nor its* pessimistic critics - who worry about information overkill - are facing one* of the most crucial problems of bourgeois representational democracies:* factual information, even if it becomes commonplace, does not necessarily* trigger any consequences. Even if stories of disasters, injustice, social and* ecological scandals are being published, this rarely leads to much* consequence.*

In recent years, there has been much reflection on the interrelations between* the reception of information, knowledge production and the options to act* within a social context. More emphasis is given to the codes which senders* and receivers are using in writing and reading messages. The question was -* and is:* how can information become meaningful and how can it then become* socially relevant. Information by itself has neither meaning nor consequences - both only evolve* from active reception and depend on the scope of action of the audience. But* this basic banality has far too rarely been taken into consideration within* the framework of radical politics.

Guerrilla communication doesn't focus on arguments and facts like most* leaflets, brochures, slogans or banners. In it's own way, it inhabits a* militant political position, it is direct action in the space of social* communication. But other than many militant positions (stone meets shop* window), it doesn't aim to destroy the codes of power and signs of control.* It prefers to counteract the omnipotent prattling of power by distorting and* disfiguring the meanings. Communication guerrillas do not intend to occupy,* interrupt or destroy the dominant channels of communication, they focus on* detourning and subverting the messages transported.

But what's new about all this? Nothing, really - after all, there have been* the Berlin Dadaists, the Italian Indiani Metropolitani, the Situationists and* many others. The practise of communication guerrilla can even be traced back* to legendary characters like the Hapsburgian soldier Svejk and Till* Eulenspiegel, the wise fool. Standing on the shoulders of earlier avantgardes, communication guerilla* doesn't claim the invention of a new politics or the foundation of a new* movement. It* is merely continuing an incessant exploration of the jungle of* communication processes, of the intertwined and muddled paths of senders,* codes and recipients. Looking not just at what's being said but focussing on* how it is being said is the method of this exploration. The aim is a* practical, material critique of the very structures of communication as a* basis of power and rule.

The bourgeois system takes it's strength - beyond other things - from it's* ability to incorporate critique. Any democratic government needs an* opposition. Every opinion needs to be balanced with another one, since the* concept of representative democracy relies on the fiction of equal exchange.* Criticism which doesn't fundamentally shatter the legitimacy of the ruling* system tends to become part of it. Communication guerrilla is an attempt to* intervene without getting absorbed by the dominant discourse. We are* experimenting with ways to get involved in situations and at the same time to* refuse any constructive participation.

Power relations have a tendency to appear as normal, even natural and* certainly inevitable. They are deeply inscribed into the rules of everyday* life. Communication guerrilla is one of the ways to create those short and* shimmering moments of confusion and distortion, moments which tell us that* everything could be completely different: a fragmented utopia as a seed of* change. The symbolic order of western capitalist societies is built around* discourses of rationality and rational conduct. Guerrilla communication* relies on the powerful possibility of expressing a fundamental critique* through the non-verbal, paradoxical and mythical.

However, guerrilla communication cannot and is not meant to replace a* rational critique of dominant politics and hegemonic culture. It doesn't* substitute counter-information, but creates additional possibilities for* intervention. Yet this form is more than the topping on the cake, more than a* mere addition to the hard work of 'real' politics and direct, material action. In search for seeds of subversion, guerrilla communication is taking up the* contradictions hidden in seemingly normal, everyday situations. It attempts* to distort normality by addressing those hidden desires that are usually* silenced by omnipresent rules of conduct, rules that define the socially* acceptable modes of behaviour as well as the 'normal' ways of communication* and interpretation. We tend to believe what we want to believe. Just a simple* example: Most people will say that it is not okay to blag the bus-fare, even* if there is a widespread feeling that public transport is too expensive. If,* however, some communication guerrillas at the occasion of an important public* event (like the funeral of Lady Di) manage to distribute fake announcements* declaring that for the purpose of participating, public transport will be* free, the possibility of reducing today's expenses may tempt even those who* doubt the authenticity of the announcement.*

Communication guerrilla is about attacking the power-relations that are* inscribed into the social organisation of space and time, into rules and* manners, into the order of public conduct and discourse. Everywhere in the* 'cultural grammar' of a society, legitimations and naturalisations of* economic, political and cultural power and inequality are inscribed.* Everybody has a knowledge of Cultural Grammar - which can be used to cause* irritations by distorting the rules of normality. Such irritations have a* potential to question seemingly natural aspects of social life. Hidden power* relations can be made visible and subverted or deconstructed. Using a term* coined by French sociologist Pierre Bourdieu, one might say that* communication guerrilla aims at a temporary expropriation of Cultural* Capital, at a disturbance of the symbolic economy of social relations.*

Go Internet, experience the Future! The practice of communication guerilla developed in pre-computerised times.* Up to the present day, many communication guerrill@s feel a strange affection* towards living in the backwoods of late capitalist society. There is an* inclination towards the use and abuse of outdated media, such as billboards,* posters, printed books and newspapers, official announcements, face-to-face* events, interventions in public space.* Thus we are sceptical towards the hypes and promises in and about the web. It* is said that liberalism leads us directly into hyperspace. A space of* absolute absence of state control, no-copyright, free production of ideas and* goods, free and equal flow of information and people across all borders, such* is the dream brought forward by some Californian net-ideology of* freedom-and-adventure. Yet neo-liberalism doesn't really work this way, but rather: freedom for the* markets, control for the people. It's becoming more and more obvious that the* internet is no virtual space of freedom beyond state and corporate control.* The law-suit of toy-selling e-company e-toys against the web-artists Etoy has* shown how badly the corporate world wants to take control of the territory of* the web. The subsequent toy-war and the complete victory of the web-artists* was a glimpse on what's possible if we use the web as a space of* intervention. (http://rtmark.com/etoy) There are still opportunities of free interchange, there are lines of* information transmission beyond police control, and some corners of the net* are still governed by potlach economy and not by commercialism. Yet the grip* of corporate economy is tightening - and if they succeed, aesthetics and* functioning of the internet will not be predominated by cyberpunks but by* corporate self-representation interspersed with a myriad of middle-class* wankers exhibiting their home-sweet-homes including garden gnoms on* corporate-sponsored homepages.* Our impression is that the structures and problems of communication in the* web do not differ fundamentally from those encountered elsewhere, at least* not as much as the hype wants to make believe.* Some media-theorists (like Michael Halberstedt in his "Economy of Attention")* have even discovered that the potential recipients of e-information are free* to filter and discard messages. They may do even much more with them! Most* users select messages not mainly according to content. Just like the reader* of a paper or the recipient of a leaflet, they/we also use criteria which may* be conceived in terms of cultural grammar and cultural capital. This is* evident to anybody* who has ever tried to distribute leaflets to people in* the streets. The web's potential to distribute infinite information is just* like traditional media structured by the needs of the audience. The basic* problems of communication are just the same on both sides of the electronic* frontier. To develop tactics to use the web as a space for critical intervention, we* need to move away from the belief in the glory of information. As in public* space, we need to focus on the influence of social and cultural settings. 'Access for all', 'Bandwidth for all': these are legitimate demands if the* web is to be more than an elitist playground of the middle classes. In some* professions, access to adequate means of communication has already become a* vital necessity of everyday life. But information and communication are not* ends in themselves. First of all, they constitute an increasingly important* terrain of social, political and cultural struggle. Even if we're all online,* it doesn't mean that a paradise of equal opportunities will emerge.* We'll* still need to attack power relations inscribed into the structure of* communication processes both inside and outside the web. In the dawn of* information capitalism, such attacks become more than just a method, more* than merely a technology of political activism: When information becomes a* commodity and cultural capital a most important asset, the distortion and* devaluation of both is a direct attack against the capitalist system. To put* it the swanky way: This is class war. Paradoxically, increasing attempts to police the net are also increasing its* attractivity as a field of operation. Fakes and false rumours inside and* outside the web are already* helping to counteract commodification and state* control - after all, the internet is an ideal space for the production of* rumours and fakes. Where technological knowledge is available, the* opportunities to fake or hijack domains and homepages, to spoil and distort* the flux of information are innumerable. Guerrilla communication relies upon* the hypertextual nature of communication processes. Even a newspaper or a* traffic sign has plenty of cross-links to other fragments of 'social text'; a* medium transporting plain text and nothing else cannot exist. Communication* guerrillas consciously distort such cross-links with the aim of* re-contextualising, criticising or disfiguring the original messages. In the* web, hypertextual aspects of communication have for the first time come to* the foreground, and the hypertext offers fascinating possibilities for all* kinds of pranks. Imagine hacking into a homepage of, say, the CIA, but instead of leaving a* blunt 'Central Stupidity Agency ' (see http://www.2600.com/cia/p_2.html)* simply modifying some of the links while leaving everything else as before.* There are terrible things one could do in this manner...

But the fascination of those possibilities should not lead to a technocentric* narrowing of the field of vision. The mythical figure of the hacker* represents a guerrilla directed towards the manipulation of technology - but* to which end? The hacker gets temporary control of a line of communication -* but many of them are mainly interested in leaving web graffiti or simply* 'doing it' (see the Hacker Museum, http://www.2600.com). Others, however,* rediscover guerrilla communication practices of the ancient: In: <nettime>* net-artist Heath Bunting slated himself in a fake review (Heath Bunting:* Wired or Tired? http://www.desk.nl/~nettime/), thus re-inventing a method* which Marx and Engels had used when they faked damning reviews by first-rank* economists to draw attention on 'The Capital'.

The internet offers fascinating possibilities also in a quite different* sense: Beyond its reality, THE WEB is an urban myth, and perhaps the* strongest and most vital of all. Social discourse conceives THE WEB as the* location where the people, the pleasures, the sex and the crimes of tomorrow* have already taken place. Go Internet, learn the Future! Fears and desires* are projected onto THE WEB: this is the mythical place where we can see the* future of our society. Paradoxically, the gift of prophecy attributed to the web gives credibility* to any information circulated there. The "real world" believes in them* because they come from the realm of virtuality, and not despite it. An* example: In Germany, there is a longstanding game called "The Invention of Chaos Days"* (http://chaos-tage.de/start.shtml). Since the early 80ies, punks have created* a tradition to hold big meetings. Of course, the towns involved used to be* terrified, the police was alarmed, and more often than not the whole thing* ended up with a huge riot. In 1996, someone put a note in the web relating* that, on day X, all the punks of Germany would* unite in Hanover to transform* it into a heap of rubble. The announcement was made, a few leaflets (maybe a* dozen) were distributed to the usual suspects. That very day, processions of* journalists encountered hosts of riot squads from all over Germany on their* way to Hanover. Once again the forces of public order were on their way to* protect civilisation against the powers of the dark, only the latter were* nowhere to be found. Apparently, they met quietly and undisturbed by police* in another place. The most astonishing thing about this game is that it* worked several times: Obviously, for the guardians of public order and public* discourse, THE WEB is a source of secret knowledge too fascinating to be* ignored. We do not mention in detail the innumerable occasions when journalists, state* officials, secret services etc. were taken in by false rumours circulating in* the net - for instance, the major German press agency dpa who fell for the* homepage of a fake corporation offering human clones, including replicas of* Claudia Schiffer and Sylvester Stallone. This effect has been reproduced: the* next one was a prank about 'ourfirsttime.com'. There is little danger that* mainstream media will learn quickly. is Besides its function as a networking tool, the web is a nice playground* for communication guerrillas, especially those living in the netscapes of* electronic communication. But let's not forget to walk and talk our way* through the jungle of the streets, to visit the not so devastated landscapes* of outdated media, to see and feel the space and the power of capitalism -* may we not forget what all the prankstering is good for.*

 

T-

 

The new war over information is here- the Luther and Sonja evidence explains how neoliberalism is attempting to control the internet to control the flow of information- allowing capital to won guarantees more class oppression. Topicality functions identically- it is used to exclude alternative forms of communication within the debate community and controls what information is considered acceptable. The 1ac may not be topical, but we challenge these types of social controls by mocking their operations- our plan text includes a sentence long rant, probably as extra-t as Ive ever heard. This mockery opens a discoursive space to change the control of information. You should reject their attempt to control information- true spread of ideas can only come through by affirmation of all possibilities.

 

And even if he wins T is a voter, his argument is just stupid-

 

a. Alternative energy incentives exist now, we expand them to include nuclear energy. This gramtically true in the context of his interp- his evidence say there must be a subject of increase to grow on- the subject of the resolution is 'alternative energy incentives' which means we only have to add to existing incentives

 

b. incentives for nuke exist

Nuclear Information and Resource Service, 4 [Nuclear Production Tax Credits and the Energy Bill]

 

One cost estimate from Friends of the Earth totals the entire HR 6 boondoggle at about $70 billion. The nuclear section alone totals at least $15 billion, including a controversial tax credit for new reactor construction. In fact, this tax credit could total a lot more (see below). It is not surprising that the nuclear power industry receives such largesse in this misguided energy bill. The industry trade and lobby organization, Nuclear Energy Institute, had contact with Vice-President Cheney’s energy task force 19 times—reportedly more than any other interest group or trade industry.

 

Huge disad to his interp- it forces affs to read inherency take outs against themselves just to prove themselves topical- that means there is no way the aff can win because the 2nc will always concede the we meet debate as a reason the aff is no longer inherent. Thats an independent voting issue for being a complete dick move. Incentives can be new.

 

Predictability debate- We're predictable in context of his standard- just because something doesn't happen now doesn't mean there isn't literature supporting doing it, otherwise there would never be any new policies advocated. Expanding nuke power is in the literature base- thats the parton evidence.

 

Ground debate- he has no internal link, his ground argument is a question of whether or not the literature exists- if we're winning predictability then his ground arguments go away. His type of ground doesn't matter anyway- we don't defend the plan, only the discoursive act of posting the 1ac on the internet. And confining the aff to incentives that exist now is bad-

 

a. destroys aff creativity- it deters affs from researching new policies which are the focus of political debates about alternative energy

b. skews ground- if the incentive exists then the harms would have been solved- that can only mean that if the aff has an advantage the literature base would have to conclude that the incentive isn't working, skewing the literature base in favor of the neg

 

Competing interp is terrible for evaluating T anyway-

 

a. No community consensus- there is never agreement on what is and isn't T- deciding it on a round by round basis doesn't solve their standards and proves why their framework is arbitrary. T is only a check on obviously abusive affirmatives- if we're guaranteeing equal ground its not a reason to vote.

b. Neg's will always find an interp of the topic to exclude certain affs- that makes their paradigm arbitrary and unpredictable

c. offense/defense is bad- encourages teams to read any T argument and always say that there is a risk the aff doesn't meet- that sets the neg up to win every T debate

 

RVI- if they don't go for this its just a huge time suck- reason to reject the team

 

I-Spec-

 

A lot this was answered on the T flow- Y'all know what the important arguments are.

 

Our plan text proves why specification arguments like this are bad-2 reasons

 

1. destorys link ground- affs will strategically write the plan text to include things to avoid certain neg arguments- also negs will lose generic link ground which increases the research burden.

2. encourages pics- specifying more allows teams to have more things to pic out of- thats his 1nc ground argument- thats bad because pics moot the 1ac, jacking aff ground and reducing the debate to miniscule comparisons of plan vs. counterplan that aren't important- independent voter for dickery

 

No risk of aff condo- we'll defend any incentive on his list. CX would have checked had he asked us about any of those. Also short circuits his ground claims. Even if we're condo its ok because it reciprocal to conditional neg advocacies.

 

We still solve, his list is the incentives we give.

 

RVI- specs are stupid and running this has litterally made me more stupider

 

Kuletz-

 

You couldn't have read a worse argument against this aff.

 

We mock scientific control- the Prima evidence is descriptive of all the harms the nuclear industry claims to control- unrelenting nuclear waste isn't going to give us superheroes, its just going to kills us. The Kuletz evidence is indicative of recognizing these problems in order to break to the control of the psuedoexperts of the nuclear industry. The Luther and Sonja evidence are particularly good here- the mocking of the traditional impact structure challenges the truth of information give to us by things like the nuclear industry- the dissimination of the 1ac distrupts the social control they criticize. Oh and by the way- only the 1ac questions the epistemology of the nuclear industry by begging the question of how harmful nuclear fuel could be. I feel like most of this debate is self explanatory and there is zero chance of link here anyway, so Im not going to spend too much time on this level of the debate.

 

They also don't access case- they're still in the same form of giving out brochures about all the problems natives are having- the Luther and Sonja evidence is fucking on fire as to why this fails to create change.

 

Also, perm- vote aff and recognize indigenous people. And perm- do the plan and all non-mutually exclusive parts of the alt. If anything the only competition derives from a link of omission that we don't talk about natives- thats bad because the only thing we know to talk about at the beginning of the debate is alternative energy- saying we just should have talked about other shit is impossible for us to predict and literally makes the research burden infinite- voter for fairness.

 

 

Baudrillard-

 

really? I almost feel like I shouldn't have to answer this, its just so completely wrong.

 

Zero link- their evidence indicts giving poor people shit to help them- we don't do that. Also, we're not portrarying impacts as means to scare you into action, quite the opposite- we show how rediculous these types of claims are and think you should vote aff to stop them. If you read the luther and sona card im sure it fills in all the blanks for ya. Better yet- our Luther and Sonja evidence say that disrupting the current flow of information with the bullshit that was the 1ac destroys the convention symbols and images used by the media and turns them against the media structure itself- thats a reason why we're link turn and an alt to this argument. Only offense is from the aff- no alternative means they can't solve any of the shit the criticize anyway.

 

Alt can't solve- rejecting the aff doesn't do anything and won't stop things like USAID giving food to people in Africa.

 

And perm- do the plan and the alt. Im not sure what this means yet, we'll wait till you make one up a real in the block to find out.

 

Condo bad- skews the 2ac and when you go for just 1 world in the block and its not reciprocal- voter for fairness. Counter interp- the neg has to defend dispositionality- solves all their offense

 

Cp

 

Perm- do the plan and the cp

Perm- consult as per the cp and do the plan anyway

perm- do the cp

 

they don't solve the case- they condition the message on someone else- im not sure what the impact is but im sure luther and sonja have shit to say about it

 

No internal link to their offense- their evidence say chuck is a good actor not that we have to consult him. They also have no evidence that says not consulting chuck pisses him off- their evidence just says we shouldnt piss him off in general- they can't solve this anyway since the cp text is literally “consult Chuck Norris before enacting the plan” which means even if he doesn't like it the plan still happens.

 

Counter interp- pedo bear is chuck norris- makes consult normal means. Also if chuck norris isn't pedo bear it would mean we still send him a letter saying fuck off, which he'll be pissed anyway.

Impact D-

Existence is meaningless anyway. And if chuck knows everything then he would know this.

 

Consult cps are a voter- they're plan plus which jacks all aff ground.

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...