Jump to content

Undefined

Member
  • Content Count

    40
  • Joined

  • Last visited

Community Reputation

8 Okay

About Undefined

  • Rank
    Longtime Member
  • Birthday 04/09/1989

Contact Methods

  • AIM
    rocketboy56
  1. Undefined

    anwr bad

    ya but look at the guy i was answering- "but it's actually true"
  2. Undefined

    anwr bad

    Alot of the ANWR bad cards have the same impact - they indicate that if we open up ANWR it sends a signal to other countries leading to a runaway, with worldwide drilling and biodiversity loss. Neither argument is true. ANWR bad is probably the right side of the impact debate to be on mainly due to the massive amount of literature and incredibly good cards, as well as the variety of impact scenarios. It's like the heg good debate. Also, all the ANWR good impacts are non-unique - we arent drilling there now but I don't see any drilling in Nigeria or Venezuela. In reality there probably isnt much of an impact to drilling either way, and ANWR good is easier to win uniqueness for
  3. there's no evidence that russia would say no simply because its the nato russia council - it still takes away all the russia says no ground because any evidence that russia says no wouldn't make the delineation between the NRC and the Security Council - there's only a risk that it's MORE abusive because you can concede all their russia says no arguments taking out solvency and still go for the counterplan in a world where they say yes. Offense/defense buddy, is there a single offensive reason that you need to consult the NRC to debate that isnt captured by allowing consultation with non-permanent SC members, such as japan?
  4. It's not conditionality unless they advocate the perm. severance perm, yes. Aff conditionality, no.
  5. Math 101 - AND requires both statements to be true, or requires one to be true - in an and statement only TT is True and everything else is false, whereas in an or statement TT, TF, and FT are all true. Or allows you to deal with one or both areas - its not a term of exclusion
  6. you NEED to win competing interpretations bad to beat this violation
  7. you don't need impacts on a turn because you don't need a turn - the counterplan is plan plus, a permutation to do the counterplan would work because all the counterplan says is "consult X AND pass plan" - its neither textually nor functionally competitive, and there aren't any theoretical or substantive arguments to make against the permutation - its no different from running a counterplan to pass plan and feed africa.
  8. Yeah, counterplans have to be net beneficial to the plan and the permutation. In order for the perm to be the "best policy option" though, it does have to be net beneficial (not that there's any real impact to it being the best policy option - I agree that they're just tests of competition).
  9. in order for the perm to be the best policy option you have to win that it's net beneficial. To answer the guy you were responding to in the first place if you win the perm, the counterplan isn't competitive, it functions as a no link.
  10. That's really not a good thing...
  11. Not really - at worst its a slightly better standard than limits alone. You claim that predictable limits is arbitrary and then support ground as the standard to determine topicality. this from the guy who hates spec arguments? Ground is an arbitrary standard because every case allows for different types of ground - even if they don't allow for this sweet argument you wanted to run, you can get links to a million other things - every decision in debate gives and takes away ground. Additionally, they can get out of the T debate by either claiming they won't spike out of those disads, or proving they increase ground. It also legitimizes the aff argument that literature checks - if I hit a case one round and its not topical, if I then cut a neg to it, does that make it topical? The reverse also applies - If i have nothing to say against a certain case (assume a blatantly topical case), should I be able to win on topicality because I didn't read any evidence on it? Its a comparison of the two interpretations in the round - your only reason to reject predictability or ground is that its arbitrary, but that's not an issue in an actual debate round because you're comparing two different itnerpretations as opposed to 100 - its pretty easy to tell which is more predictably limiting between support = musical accompaniment and support = troops. It may not be a great argument, but it's a hell of alot better than ground The impact to a loss of limits is loss of fairness and ground, so you should support it anyway - it's the internal link to your favorite standard
  12. this is retarded - they'll never win the standards debate, as one of the best pieces of offense against a counter-interpretation on the subsets debate is that they allow for combination cases because if you don't support all there's no word that excludes it to one pko
×
×
  • Create New...