Jump to content

TheLaw

Member
  • Content Count

    9
  • Joined

  • Last visited

Community Reputation

10 Good

About TheLaw

  • Rank
    Registered User
  1. Here's the thing on T: The resolution calls for you to "Substantially decrease authority to either detain without charge or search without probable cause. Or would clearly imply that you would do one, or the other, but not both. As in: I will go to the park, or the zoo Repealing the Patriot Act would do both, which is a potentially interesting topicality debate next year.
  2. Anyone have any thoughts on this? Seems a lot like leave/dismantle the UN this year. Anti-resolutional. Essentially: Revoke all Civil Liberties, burn the bill of rights, ect. Net Benefit of terrorism, plus there must be some evidence that civil rights are bad, that democracy is bad, and so on and so forth.
  3. Two points to make here: 1. Some of the money has come from foreign relief programs, which are closley associated with Peacekeeping 2. I have various cards saying the Senators are unwilling to push the deficit too high to continue to pledge aid. They are concerned about simply running out of money. Say that increasing the deficit any further will block future aid.
  4. The DA could definetly turn case. I actually have a card that says UN Credibility precludes Solvency. I use it against cases with no UN Cred advantage.
  5. No, a CP does not have to solve the Aff's harms. All it has to do is show that is competitive via the Net Benefit of the CP. Second, you can perm a PIC. Just not "Do Both." Instead you could go with: Lie- Consult Country X with non-binding consultation, but don't tell them that the consultation is non-binding. This works for two reasons:Because their evidence says that Country X will always say yes, it does not matter that the consultation is not binding. Second, since there is always the smallest chance the country will say no, you allow for the plan to still be done. Also, you could do a perm where you consult country X on something else, like the ICC, while doing your plan. Therefor, you have 100 percent of your plan and their net benefit.
  6. Cool, could you e-mail it to me at Law19@comcast.net?
  7. Let me point you toward some source material. A book called "Tower of Babble: How the United Nations has Fueled Global Chaos" by Dore Gold. He was Israel's ambassador to the UN for several years, and saw the corruption of the organization from the inside. At some point, he reccomends America leave the UN and replace it with a similar organization, made only of free and democratic nations. Here's a link for more info: http://www.nrbookservice.com/BookPage.asp?prod_cd=c6563
  8. I'm working on debate right now....
  9. I've been thinking about this ever since news of the No-Confidence vote broke. Something like: A. Annan is on his way out B. US support for UN will make Annan look good/keep him in power C. Annan kills UN credibility or Annan's lack of leadership destroys the UN's ability to solve, turning case Any thoughts? Just a theory right now, but I'm looking for some input
×
×
  • Create New...