Jump to content


  • Content Count

  • Joined

  • Last visited

Community Reputation

10 Good

About Cendien

  • Rank
    Registered User

Contact Methods

  • AIM

Profile Information

  • Occupation
  1. From what I heard, it was a 1A team that got DQ'd in the Semi's round. I heard about the DQ and the round, but I'm not sure its my place to talk about it. Regardless, UIL rules are a bit too strict IMO... Sorry guys, but congrats on getting 3rd anyway!
  2. if anyone could send these to me i could host them free.. have more bandwidth available than that service offers.. shoot me a PM if you can and i'll tell you where to send em. Or.. could use filefront.. which always seems more reliable.
  3. I'd attack solvency.. 1) Turn - PMF/PMC's have economic incentive to prolong conflict. (Since PMF's aren't under direct employment of any armed forces, it is in the company's best interest to prolong the conflict, or not solve as soon as possible, as they are paid based on amount of time they spend.) 2) Find ev that states that PMF's commit human rights violations. 3) Use of PMF's violates international law. Look up the UN Mercenary Convention, this states that anyone who has ratified the convention agrees that the hiring of a mercenary for use under any armed forces or for use in any armed conflict where any armed forces are also employed is illegal under international law. While the US has not ratified this convention (as far as i know), the UN will not accept the use of PMF's in any situation. There is a lot of information on this out there. Look up an article called "Peacekeepers, Inc." I can't recall the author, but just google it. The article discusses the positive and negative impacts of using PMF's in place of peacekeepers. Hope this helps. If you need any further info, IM me. (hollowdissonance)
  4. So is this something that could even possibly work or am I totally off here? Like I said, was just a spur of the moment thought but I figured it was worth asking about.
  5. I was just reading a PDD-25 aff/neg thread, and in thinking about it I came up with an idea.. I'm probably not the first, but hey, I'll post it anyways as I havn't seen it here before. So like I was saying.. a PDD-25 CP. In the status-quo, with PDD-25 in effect, we will only help in PKOs that directly affect or benefit (or are in the national interest of) the US. The CP says that the aff case has no solvency since the US wouldn't be able to do the plan under PDD-25, assuming the case isn't a direct national interest (as most PKOs around the world would fall into this category.) It then basically proposes the aff case plan of PDD-25, thereby gaining all adv's that the regular case gets. The problem I'm running into would be mutual exclusivity. Once the CP has been passed, the aff case suddenly becomes solveable, and thereby could be permed. Also, I'm sure it would hit arguments such as FIAT would bypass PDD-25. Anyways, what do you guys think? Was just a quick idea, and I'm sure it has plenty of holes.. but I thought I'd get some others' opinions. Thanks!
  6. I think it would be very possible to eliminate USFG, except for the word "either." If you were to remove it, you would be removing its ability to both detain without charge and to search without probable cause, rahter than just one of the two, as the word "either" requires. Then again, If you'd be running this, I'm sure you'd have answers.
  7. i hit this case 3 times at a tournament 2 weeks ago.. all the teams were from the same school. they used the ICC to prosecute peacekeepers commiting sex trafficking crimes, and ended the US exemption from the ICC, though they ran it incorrectly, and misinterpreted the exemption, which i found out later that evening.. blah! i was so sick of hearing that case by the end of the day.
  8. that is all correct. a lot of cards i have actually compare darfur to the size of france. (fyi)
  • Create New...