Jump to content

Recommended Posts

Yeah, so I'm trying to put together a case for next year. Basically the USFG should use some of the miltary's budget to increase social services. I was planning on modeling Brazil's Bosla Familia plan to make a new social service helping poor students by paying them to stay in scholl and be healthy. Its working over there, kinda. I have stuff saying its lowering poverty levels so I wanted to calim its impericaly proven. I wanted to claim heg is bad and our plan solves for it because we're taking money from the miltary.

Any thoughts or advice?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

COuld I say: Having a powerful milltary , with a bloated budget is taking us one step closer to become Nazi Germany. ?

  • Downvote 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
COuld I say: Having a powerful milltary , with a bloated budget is taking us one step closer to become Nazi Germany. ?

 

1 off, holocaust trivialization....

 

Maybe not just one off.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

moved to poverty for obvious reasons

 

If you're really into the heg bad debate, cool, this might work, but the whole nazi thing sounds a little off. I mean, there are plenty of other things to say about decreasing heg

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

You live in Oklahoma? Yeah, I'm sure you'll have a lot of success when you tell conservative, patriotic national enthusiast judges that their beloved "god-founded nation" is comparable to nazi germany.

  • Downvote 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
You live in Oklahoma? Yeah, I'm sure you'll have a lot of success when you tell conservative, patriotic national enthusiast judges that their beloved "god-founded nation" is comparable to nazi germany.

 

QFA

LMAO

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
unless you're going critical the heg bad side of the debate isn't as strong as heg good

How can you make that remark when America is quickly falling right now? The quality of the hegemony is bad and the non unique cards are phenomenal. All the hegemony good authors repeat the same warrants, but the counterbalancing, terrorism, prolif, all the different scenarios for escalation are pretty more developed + have better "heg low now" cards.

 

Not to say hegemony good is a bad debate, just saying its a little silly to say heg bad is a loss.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
How can you make that remark when America is quickly falling right now? The quality of the hegemony is bad and the non unique cards are phenomenal. All the hegemony good authors repeat the same warrants' date=' but the counterbalancing, terrorism, prolif, all the different scenarios for escalation are pretty more developed + have better "heg low now" cards.

 

Not to say hegemony good is a bad debate, just saying its a little silly to say heg bad is a loss.[/quote']

So...not only did Bush destroy US hegemony, he also destroyed hegemony debates?

 

Actually, this is certainly true and it didn't used to be. I'd still rather be on the heg good side of things but it is no longer as clear cut. Most of the problems for heg good are that the standard cards (for the love of god, stop reading Khalilzad 95) talk about why the decline in heg would be bad, but with the uniqueness situation, you are going to be claiming an increase in heg, which those authors aren't talking about. For me, that makes the newer heg bad evidence much more compelling, though it doesn't help if you are still reading the old Chomsky cards.

 

Moral of the story: don't read old cards when new ones exist.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
All the hegemony good authors repeat the same warrants' date=' but the counterbalancing, terrorism, prolif, all the different scenarios for escalation are pretty more developed + have better "heg low now" cards.[/quote']

Heg Bad cards dont repeat the same warrant? really?? The "better" heg bad cards why its unsustainable, low now, all repeat the same warrant, " the economy sucks now!" or "military overstrech!", ALL heg cards repeat the same warrant. Heg bad because of terrorism or prolif have had the same warrants since forever, to say otherwise is dumb, and theres some pretty good "heg on the recovery cards" and plus heg low now isn't even a solid argument. Its a little silly to say cards that all say "heg low now and unsustainable b/c of the economy" is a "more developed argument" than the aff having a specific reason their plan can overcome these negative images in the status quo. Last I checked, authors who write stuff such as "heg key to check terrorism and prolif" had stronger, more diverse, and empirical warrants, even if those cards are older, your newer cards still contain the same warrants and most of time doesn't assume our warrants.

 

Not to say hegemony good is a bad debate' date=' just saying its a little silly to say heg bad is a loss.[/quote']

I agree, its naive for that guy to say that, but most DECENT aff's will have reasons specifically why their aff is key to make heg sustainable which wins them the heg bad debate almost all the time which makes it extremely hard to win heg bad.

Edited by plzzz

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Heg Bad cards dont repeat the same warrant? really?? The "better" heg bad cards why its unsustainable, low now, all repeat the same warrant, " the economy sucks now!" or "military overstrech!", ALL heg cards repeat the same warrant. Heg bad because of terrorism or prolif have had the same warrants since forever, to say otherwise is dumb, and theres some pretty good "heg on the recovery cards" and plus heg low now isn't even a solid argument. Its a little silly to say cards that all say "heg low now and unsustainable b/c of the economy" is a "more developed argument" than the aff having a specific reason their plan can overcome these negative images in the status quo. Last I checked, authors who write stuff such as "heg key to check terrorism and prolif" had stronger, more diverse, and empirical warrants, even if those cards are older, your newer cards still contain the same warrants and most of time doesn't assume our warrants.

 

 

I agree, its naive for that guy to say that, but most DECENT aff's will have reasons specifically why their aff is key to make heg sustainable which wins them the heg bad debate almost all the time which makes it extremely hard to win heg bad.

alright bro! All I can say is that the quality of hegemony bad cards I've cut, with the non uniques, are much better than any 'heg high' or 'heg good' cards. So you standing up here and being like, 'no dude heg bad all have the same warrants' is silly. lol @ empirical being a warrant; there are so many terrorist attacks/plans that occur despite the us being a 'hegemon' - which means either heg doesnt solve them, or heg is low now. Alot of the non unique cards I've found at least do 'assume your warrants' by citing factors from money depletion (please dont pretend that this isnt true..) to a collapse of international support for coalitions.

 

yay some affs will have specific reasons they increase heg, but their advantage is still the same..which doesnt help against the non existant links that the neg is reading because they are impact turning and non uniqueing.

  • Downvote 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
You live in Oklahoma? Yeah, I'm sure you'll have a lot of success when you tell conservative, patriotic national enthusiast judges that their beloved "god-founded nation" is comparable to nazi germany.

 

Actually, most of the 6A judges are college debaters and/or former high school debaters who really don't care a whole lot. But since he is from a smaller school, he will get a few judges like that. But don't assume because we live in Oklahoma that we are all like that.

 

Although empirically the heg good debate has been easier, recent presidencies have kind of balanced the playing field if you get my drift. There is definitely quality heg bad evidence out there, just as there are quality heg good cards. That said, I have found it to be more strategic to criticize hegemony on the kritikal level instead of simply reading heg bad cards...

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Yeah, so I'm trying to put together a case for next year. Basically the USFG should use some of the miltary's budget to increase social services. I was planning on modeling Brazil's Bosla Familia plan to make a new social service helping poor students by paying them to stay in scholl and be healthy. Its working over there, kinda. I have stuff saying its lowering poverty levels so I wanted to calim its impericaly proven. I wanted to claim heg is bad and our plan solves for it because we're taking money from the miltary.

Any thoughts or advice?

 

 

Specifying where your funding comes from makes you extra topical. The only way to make this work is if your plan just says "funding comes from normal means", but you argue that normal means for social service funding is to trade off with military funding.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
alright bro! All I can say is that the quality of hegemony bad cards I've cut' date=' with the non uniques, are much better than any 'heg high' or 'heg good' cards.[/quote']

alright bro! even if heg is low now, that doesnt mean where not the leading global hegemon or other countries are going to fill in. sorry, "bro" but heg low or high has no important precedence in a heg bad debate.

 

So you standing up here and being like' date=' 'no dude heg bad all have the same warrants' is silly.[/quote']

holy shit, didnt you say this about heg good in your first post, and later in this post? sounds like someones being silly :S

 

lol @ empirical being a warrant; there are so many terrorist attacks/plans that occur despite the us being a 'hegemon' - which means either heg doesnt solve them' date=' or heg is low now.[/quote']

lol at dumbness. Terrorism is good to sustain heg because it causes other countries to rally behind the US and creates coalitions to crackdown on terrorism - empircally proven by 9-11 Plus, you're in a double bind either

A) terrorism is high now but those conflicts have yet to escalate nuclear, empircally denying your impact - meaning our case outweighs or

B) heg is high and critical to contain terrorism since your impacts havent happened.

 

Alot of the non unique cards I've found at least do 'assume your warrants' by citing factors from money depletion (please dont pretend that this isnt true..) to a collapse of international support for coalitions.

this is above' date=' it really has no impact in a heg bad debate.

 

yay some affs will have specific reasons they increase heg, but their advantage is still the same..which doesnt help against the non existant links that the neg is reading because they are impact turning and non uniqueing.

dude, you obviously havent been in a quality heg bad debate. if the aff wins they make heg sustainable, then the negatives turns arent offense - thats heg bad debate 101.

 

you have a better chance reading a DA with a heg impact and winning it turns the case than winning heg bad.

Edited by plzzz

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I'm sorry you have such a stuck up attitude. Unfortunately, I really don't have the time to keep arguing back and forth with you about this argument, not to mention that it would be a waste of time.

 

You must be pretty darn good if you like throwing your weight around this much!

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
I'm sorry you have such a stuck up attitude. Unfortunately' date=' I really don't have the time to keep arguing back and forth with you about this argument, not to mention that it would be a waste of time.[/quote']

im the one with the stuck up attitude? have you read any of your posts lately? oh and you have time since you have over 1,300 posts and are on here daily.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Specifying where your funding comes from makes you extra topical. The only way to make this work is if your plan just says "funding comes from normal means", but you argue that normal means for social service funding is to trade off with military funding.

 

I've never understood this. Don't most bills explain where funding comes from? The easiest way to check back affs like this is to CP out of it (ie slash DoD funding) and claim a shitty econ net benefit plus any disad that links to the plan. This is a super easy neg ballot because the odds they have ev saying "taking DoD funs for the plan is key" are almost 0 meaning CP would solve all of case, so any risk of a Disad = neg ballot

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Realistically...the uniqueness debate on hege (as well as democracy, prolif, softpower, and economy) is all relative in terms of uniqueness.

 

Also, the on case hege bad debates shouldn't matter about uniqueness. Or rather they shouldn't have to read uniqueness evidence the way hege good adv. are usually run.

For instance authors that indicate the us is on a collision course with the China--generally assume hege is high. The aff keeps that hege high or slipping further.

(Also even if the aff wins...hege slipping now....thats only uniqueness for the link--and doesn't disprove the impact--especially given that its a **predictive impact**)

 

Also, lets take the us hege = terrorism. This seems like pretty empirically proven no matter what the uniqueness says. (military strategy has adjusted post-surge, such that it might be negiligable--but the uniqueness question seems pretty irrelevant to me here) Also, most authors who write these cards seem to be making linear arguments anyway.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Actually, most of the 6A judges are college debaters and/or former high school debaters who really don't care a whole lot. But since he is from a smaller school, he will get a few judges like that. But don't assume because we live in Oklahoma that we are all like that.

 

Wow dude. Not what I said at all. Read posts more carefully. I never even came close to implying that all people from Oklahoma are like that. I said that he will run into judges like that. And he will. I don't care where you are from, you are going to have at least a few parent judges at every tournament. I went to school in Houston, which had a ridiculous amount of college judges. You could get contracted to judge and easily make $150 to $200 in a weekend (as opposed to Colorado where I now am lucky to break $80). College students come back to judge for that kind of money. Nonetheless I still would have, at every tournament, at least a few patriotic national enthusiast judges. Judges that would have downed me in a second if I had told them that their beloved "God-founded nation" was comparable to Nazi Germany. This is because Texas is a republican and conservative state. Likewise, Oklahoma is a Republican and conservative state. The same applies. I wasn't critcizing Oklahoma nor making a generalization about everyone who lives there. I was simply noting that he lives in Oklahoma...and that obviously, someone from Oklahoma will run into judges with this mentality much more frequently than people who live in other more liberal-minded states.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
I've never understood this. Don't most bills explain where funding comes from? The easiest way to check back affs like this is to CP out of it (ie slash DoD funding) and claim a shitty econ net benefit plus any disad that links to the plan. This is a super easy neg ballot because the odds they have ev saying "taking DoD funs for the plan is key" are almost 0 meaning CP would solve all of case, so any risk of a Disad = neg ballot

 

 

That cp wouldn't be an easy neg ballot, it would just get the neg back to where they started - squo (econ disad) vs the actual resolution (stuff about giving social services to people in poverty).

 

Specifying funding is unstrategic because it makes funding pics competitive (like when the neg does the plan except trades off with a different budget).

 

Specifying funding makes them extra topical because they mandate an action other than the resolution. Even if in the real world trade offs occur, the resolution doesn't specify a particular budget that we should trade off with - that means that the aff has to defend normal means, not define normal means in their plan text.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Specifying funding is unstrategic because it makes funding pics competitive (like when the neg does the plan except trades off with a different budget).

too bad those are competitive.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
That cp wouldn't be an easy neg ballot, it would just get the neg back to where they started - squo (econ disad) vs the actual resolution (stuff about giving social services to people in poverty).

 

Well presumably they spec funding so they can claim a major advantage off of this source of funding. CP is guaranteed to solve this advantage (also CP could be to cut more funding than necessary for plan giving it a better link to the advantage). You now have CP which solves at least part of case + DA vs rest of case. The only reason you would spec funding is because it gives you this advantage that is prolly going to have a fairly large impact. The other advantages are gonna be less developed since they spent the time to read the advantage that isn't germane to the topic.

 

Specifying funding makes them extra topical because they mandate an action other than the resolution. Even if in the real world trade offs occur, the resolution doesn't specify a particular budget that we should trade off with - that means that the aff has to defend normal means, not define normal means in their plan text.

 

I mean why is it a separate action? Why isn't funding a subset of the bill that the plan emulates (ie something intrinsic to the plan itself)?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Well presumably they spec funding so they can claim a major advantage off of this source of funding.

 

Ok... the neg can cp out of an extra topical advantage. EASY WIN!!!12!1! Assuming you at least have some 2ac add ons that talk about why your actual plan mechanism is good, this cp just gets the neg back to where they started, by solving unfair advantages...

 

 

 

(also CP could be to cut more funding than necessary for plan giving it a better link to the advantage).

 

 

No, the perm would solve any "better link" to the advantage.

 

 

You now have CP which solves at least part of case + DA vs rest of case.

 

 

Yeah... you cp out of a heg advantage, and you have a "shitty" econ disad to weigh against all the other shit normal plans solve for...

 

 

 

The only reason you would spec funding is because it gives you this advantage that is prolly going to have a fairly large impact. The other advantages are gonna be less developed since they spent the time to read the advantage that isn't germane to the topic.

 

 

Yeah, that's why they're going to lose on T every round - trust me.

 

 

I mean why is it a separate action? Why isn't funding a subset of the bill that the plan emulates (ie something intrinsic to the plan itself)?

 

 

I'm going to explain this one more time - I doubt I'll find it worth my time to repeat this explanation again. If you still don’t agree with me, ask around. The rez is verbatim "The United States federal government should substantially increase social services to persons living in poverty in the United States". The aff can claim advantages from a plan that takes a resolution action. The action of "cutting military spending" MAY BE a real world part of what giving social services ENTAILS, but it makes you extra topical if you MANDATE or try to fiat something that isn't part of the resolution. You can claim your shitty trade off advantage, but you have to prove that normal means is for Congress to cut military spending... otherwise, you can't claim that ground.

 

And to the OP – this convo probably explains why even claiming trade off advantages without being extra topical isn’t strategic. The neg can cp out of the advantage with a zero risk of a solvency deficit by just cutting the budget…

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

×
×
  • Create New...